The Four Color Media Monitor

Author Julie Bindel at Unherd addressed the issue of how the mainstream press and entertainment industry was slow to respond to the sexual assault accusations made against the now disgraced Neil Gaiman, and just because he's now thankfully facing consequences in the court of public opinion and losing TV and film projects, along with any more possible book deals, that doesn't excuse the initial attempts to downplay the seriousness of the scandal:

For Scarlett, “Gaiman’s superfans somehow seem to think that they have personally been betrayed by the allegations because they see him as sharing their own tick-box ‘progressive’ values,” she told me. “It’s beyond belief for me that people just aren’t acknowledging that a man in his Sixties has admitted that he got into the bath with his 23-year-old employee within the first few hours that they met.”

Definitely, the muted response that came initially to the news is appalling, and while older man-younger woman affairs are fine in themselves, what's not okay is that Gaiman would just begin an [extramarital] affair so quickly, when it requires building a relationship to make it work, not just barging in on a lady's privacy.

Given the seriousness of the allegations made against such a famous author, you might have expected the Tortoise podcast to have been met with righteous anger. And it was. But not the sort that you might think. Despite the careful reporting — which includes regular reminders that Gaiman denies any wrongdoing whatsoever — many of his fans have expressed their outrage at the podcast, claiming that Johnson is a “Right-wing Terf” with an axe to grind. The podcast, they say, is an attempt by anti-trans activists to smear him. As Rachel Johnson tells me, “The trans activist lefties discrediting the podcast as ‘terf’ made by the sister of Boris is purest misogyny. It’s meticulously researched and it’s fair to a fault.”

Perhaps his impeccable Left liberal feminist credentials have confused people. A whole book has been written about how women-friendly Gaiman’s work is: Feminism in the Worlds of Neil Gaiman: Essays on the Comics, Poetry and Prose. The podcast also found two female advocates. One says she’s known Gaiman for 12 years, and that while she’s alive to his faults, doesn’t believe him capable of sexual misconduct. She says she would “go to the wall for him on this” and be “stunned if the allegations were true”. Yet the same friend also said that Gaiman has autism, suggesting that perhaps “some of his mistakes” may be explained by its contribution to what she called his “naivety”.

That she talks about “mistakes” nods, perhaps, to the fact that these women were all in consensual relationships with Gaiman. But to claim that he was “naive” is to disregard the fact that the vast amount of sexual abuse takes place within consensual relationships. I have heard women who should know better describe the allegations against Gaiman as “not really abuse” because there was no force involved, and the women did engage in certain activity willingly. But each of the women who has come forward about Gaiman described instances of coercive control.

What was telling in earlier reports is that, while a few of the relationships may have ostensibly begun consensually, it was after they began that Gaiman started to cross red lines and subject them to offensive acts. That's what his apologists are clearly unwilling to consider. And to dismiss these reports simply because they were first revealed by a conservative-managed news site is also beyond the pale. It sounds like some of the same crowd who attack J.K. Rowling over her opposition to LGBT ideology are among the apologists for Gaiman.

How did the big corporations who profit from Gaiman’s work respond? While Disney and Netflix quietly paused their Gaiman adaptations, it took Amazon until last week to announce that filming of the final series of Good Omens had been halted due to the allegations. “I may be cynical,” Scarlett told me, “but I don’t imagine that Amazon or Disney have paused production because they altruistically care about allegations of abuse. Amazon and Disney have likely suspended production because they are a business, and the only thing that drives a business is cost. This is about cash and not care.”

See, nothing's changed since the days of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and #MeToo. All that matters to the studios besides the dough is whether the scandal will lead to bad publicity for them, but all they're really sorry about is that Gaiman's past caught up with him. No wonder there's bound to be more sexual assault scandals where the mainstream are slow to respond, and even slower to acknowledge morality. According to this commentary on Arret Sur Images, the majority which is unfortunately behind a paywall, even in France and the UK, most businesses are slow to distance themselves from associating with Gaiman, and that's not promising either. The French-language Comics Blog had the following to say, which I've translated as best as possible, along with another to follow:

Since July 3, 2024, author Neil Gaiman has been at the center of particularly serious accusations concerning inappropriate sexual behavior, or more simply, sexual assault. Two initial accusations were reported at the beginning of this summer, before three others were added to these statements. The stories diverge overall, but still contain disturbing similarities, particularly regarding the influence or the balance of power that Gaiman could have used on his victims. However, it is likely that you have not heard of these cases. And not only because we, on the site, took too long to write about them... but also because the revelations in question were accompanied by a deafening silence from the major specialized press outlets, or even from the community of comic book authors.

Last time I looked, if there's one specialty site that still hasn't acknowledged the news, it's leftist Comics Beat. The last item they posted about Gaiman was from at least a year ago in 2023, and nothing newer turns up in the search results so far. If they ever do bring up the subject, they're bound to continue being very superficial and avoid serious descriptions, recalling how they reported about the disgraced Dark Horse editor Scott Allie. Towards the end of the French-language post, it also says:

However, if the behaviors Neil Gaiman is accused of do not necessarily fall within the realm of criminal law, those who understand these testimonies as a consistent series of facts will be able to attest to a recurring fact: the author clearly took advantage of his celebrity status, or a possible relationship of domination (with... employees who worked for him, or fans) to obtain sexual relations. There is also another question at present, which remains to be elucidated: the role of Amanda Palmer. She was clearly aware of her ex-husband's actions towards other young women (remember the "fourteen"), and according to Claire's testimony, she could even have pushed certain young women into the clutches of her partner.

Now that's a very serious accusation made there. I know some USA/UK leftists don't seem to like Palmer either, and if she was initially negligent regarding her ex-husband's offensive antics, that's appalling. (Gaiman was originally married to another woman, Mary McGrath, probably until the early 2000s. One can only wonder if his behavior played a role in their breakup too.) After this scandal, chances are he'll be single going forward for a long time.

Actualitte said the French-language publisher of Gaiman's books is also slow to move away from him:

When asked, Neil Gaiman's main French publisher, Au Diable Vauvert, shared its reaction to the accusations: "Stupefaction, we have no other information than the press." The publishing house has published some of the British author's greatest successes, including Good Omens, co-written with Terry Pratchett (trans. Patrick Marcel), Stardust (trans. Frédérique Le Boucher), American Gods (trans. Michel Pagel) and The Ocean at the End of the Lane (trans. Patrick Marcel).

The publishing house is categorical about Neil Gaiman's behavior, and tells us that it has "absolutely never" heard of any inappropriate gestures on the part of the British author. At present, the publishing house has no plans to suspend the distribution of his works: "He is a great writer of our century," emphasizes Au Diable Vauvert.

Well that's an awfully stupid way to respond, considering several film studios and publishers overseas have already distanced themselves from Gaiman. All they're doing is making clear Europe's the tortoise when it comes to morality.

Then, since we're still on the topic, while leftist Bleeding Cool finally got around to saying something on September 8, but, much like the aforementioned Comics Beat, their descriptions are very weak and ambiguous:

A spokesperson for the production would not comment for DH's reporting. In July, Tortoise Media released the podcast Master: The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, which included assault allegations against the author. Gaiman has denied the allegations.

Just assault, and not anything sex-based? One could very well assume it was little more than a case of a schoolyard brawl. Well this is hardly getting anywhere, and some of the commentors noticed it too. For example:

The allegations have serious traction that goes beyond the partisan shiftiness of Tortoise Media. I feel if BC didn’t have breathless admiration for Gaiman we’d have seen a number of articles detailing the accusations. The more this is ignored on BC the more they become a part of the problem. I mean the Ellis stuff isn’t nearly so harrowing and it got covered in depth.

Considering what a leftist Warren Ellis is, it sure is surprising they'd turn against him over less. Next:

Nice of you folks to finally cover the allegations against Gaiman, or mention they exist, I guess. The fact that five different women are alleging sometimes violent assaults are details left for the reader to google on their own. Since you didn't even link through to Tortoise.

Other news sites, such as Rolling Stone, CBR, and the AV Club have been covering this for over two months. That BC has been pointedly silent on the matter, all while publishing gushing essays about other Gaiman projects, certainly makes your position clear.

And:

Ya know, we put up with a lot here. And I don’t just mean the barely functioning website, littered with obtrusive advertisements, articles that haven’t seen a spell checker, let alone an editor, and the constant padding of copied material that you have to literally hunt for the “new” information.

I’m talking about the constant double standards. The lip service to trans people when covering Rowling’s transphobia whilst publishing constant articles that are basically advertisements for any and every Hogwarts branded item under the sun. The articles about “Dave Sim’s latest outrage!” which are advertisements for the latest Cerebus comic.

And Rich, you love to tout how progressive you are. But you STILL use “identity politics” in comic books to fuel your unending hunger for clickbait. “Another Robin turning LGBTQIA++++?!?!” “Kate Pryde FINALLY confirmed as Bisexual!” “Deadpool being killed off to be replaced by mystery woman!”

We are not just a punchline you can exploit for hits to your site.

And now this. The enormous Gaiman sized hole in coverage. Yeah, we noticed. We’ve also noticed the continual coverage of Warren Ellis stuff, taken straight from his newsletter. But you drop the allegations stuff in the final paragraph to cover your butts.

I cannot believe that the website that published “DC Comics is Turning Dr Jill Biden Into a Murderous Otter” would baulk at the prospect of putting the reason behind the Good Omens delay in a headline unless they REALLY didn’t want to.

Also:

It's particularly galling coming from Flook, who's looking increasingly like the performative leftist fake ally that right wingers love to hold up as examples of "what the left is really like".

This is certainly telling something. And then:

What's with the overall silence on the Neil Gaiman story? That seems like the kind of gossip you guys should be all over. I've been a fan of that guy since the early nineties and I am done with him. Too bad about Good Omens but sheesh.

Let's hope this means people are beginning to see BC for what they are, just a bunch of left-wing phonies, and that's why, seriously, why trouble oneself with even clicking through to their site if Johnston and company aren't altruistic? That they refused to mention the scandal for several weeks, and even now continue to remain ambiguous about the details, is telling all you need to know what kind of "reporters" they really are.

On September 11, when Gaiman offered to step away from production on Good Omens, they repeated their fuzzy coverage, and more commentors had the following to say:

Is this the first time BC has even addressed the Neil Gaiman accusations?

Somebody else said:

If you mean by "addressed" "actually mentioned," probably. Rich is adding mendacity to his already poor writing CV.

Yup. And then:

I couldn't stomach watching a third series myself. But anyway. Instead of quoting what David Tennant said back in May, it would be something closer to news to report what he thinks since the allegations against Neil Gaiman have come out. You guys gotta confront the actual story of Neil Gaiman right now. You can't tell me that a comics industry muckraker like Rich Johnson can't find something worth writing. This is just weird, guys.

To which was replied:

It's difficult to be a muckraker when it's your pals. Apparently.

Well he sure hasn't set a good example if he continues to remain buddies with somebody that abusive. All this is doing is revealing what's wrong with BC, that they've never really been altruistic, and it's to be hoped sensible people will stop wasting time on a site that's more clickbait than serious news and commentary on the entertainment industry.

It's fortunate in the end that more press sources have covered the news on Gaiman's scandal, and most of the film industry's backing away from him. Hopefully, the comics industry's doing the same. But it's a terrible shame not all the industry's been altruistic about this, and that's why the problem won't be solved in a fortnight.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, history, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics, violence

Polygon announced writer Tim Seeley's produced a miniseries that's supposed to explore Rogue and Magneto's time together in the Savage Land, which originally took place in Uncanny X-Men #274 from around 1991:

If you’re an X-Men ’97 fan who wasn’t just surprised by the revelation that Rogue and Magneto have history but also instantly wanted to know more, Marvel has just the comic for you. Rogue: The Savage Land, a retro limited series from a great team of modern creators, will dive back into the 1990s story arc that first took two very different X-Men characters and strung a wire of sexual tension between them.

In 1991’s Uncanny X-Men #274, Rogue found herself almost powerless and stranded in the Savage Land, Marvel Comics’ own Land of the Lost-style Antarctic oasis. How did she find herself there? Don’t worry about it. What did she find when she got there? An alliance with an amorous Magneto and the scantily clad Ka-Zar, Marvel’s own Tarzan analog (and oft-played Marvel Snap card), against the evil sorceress Zaladane. Rogue and Magneto’s romance was never truly to be, after he executed Zaladane — a level of villainy Rogue just did not vibe with anymore — but that hasn’t stopped later writers from calling back to the attraction they once briefly shared.

You know, if what Mags did was wrong, and it's kept in canon, doesn't that sour the milk for retrospectives? Of course, if killing the evil sorceress was a bad idea writing-wise, then maybe it'd be better to jettison it from canon? I've noted before that, just like in the DCU, if there's bad storylines in the MCU that need to be expunged, then maybe it'd be for the best to do so. And then, if, like with various male criminals, including those seen in the Punisher, this sorceress was so awful and Mags was acting in self-defense, then maybe his act shouldn't be looked upon as total villainy, even if it's not above scrutiny and evaluation. Of course, this is exactly why the storyline from the mid-90s where Gambit was "established" as having unwittingly led Mr. Sinister to the Morlock lair and enabled the villain to slaughter the community there should definitely be expunged from any continuity. Unfurtunately but unsurprisingly, no objective view is taken on such issues by the columnist.

The article, interestingly enough, says:

For Rogue: The Savage Land writer Tim Seeley (Nightwing, Shatterstar), a chance to go back to Rogue’s time in the Savage Land was “a dream job, and probably the absolute perfect Marvel gig for me,” he told Polygon via email. “In these 5 issues I get to utilize my love for 80s X-Men, Jim Lee, Chris Claremont, Zabu, scantily clad heroines (and heroes!) and probably most importantly: DINOSAURS.” [...]

“We’re going to deliver something fresh,” Seeley promised, “while honoring the impossibly sexy and epic classic tale of a young Rogue, and two of the weirdest allies a girl from Mississippi could ask for: Magento and Ka-Zar.”

While I can't bring myself to buy modern Marvel, based on how abominable it's become since Joe Quesada took over, and C.B Cebulski's done little to improve the situation, I do appreciate Seeley's willingness to respect the idea of writing Rogue as a sex symbol. But the way Marvel keeps milking dry their creations in a modern sense is ruining everything, right down to how they remain stuck on an incoherent canon since the turn of the century. The same path that's led to the latest depiction of X-Men in a horror-themed direction. We could honestly do without that.

Labels: history, marvel comics, msm propaganda, violence, women of marvel, X-Men

The Jerusalem Post recently spoke about animated shorts produced by an Israeli entrepreneur who's worked in animation, and produced a series of short cartoons called "God's Gang", which cannot seem to get its "point" across without including a character representing Islam, and even then, the rest of the cast in the cartoon shorts reeks of stereotypical development:

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s – a group of four superheroes from different religions, all working together to save the world.

That’s the premise of God’s Gang, a series of interfaith cartoons on YouTube that was created by Israeli hi-tech entrepreneur Nimrod-Avraham May, who developed this channel out of a desire to promote tolerance and love.

May said that he was inspired to create this interfaith story when he thought, “I know many people who are not Jews or Israelis who are kind and compassionate and truthful and positive and friendly and loving, and why not build these bridges instead of bombing them?... The show is not a show about religion or faith.... It’s a show [whose] underlying message is promoting coexistence and unity, the teaching of love,” he said. But he chose to convey these messages via children’s action-adventure and comedy cartoons.

The hit success of God's Gang

Since the series began running last September, it has become wildly successful, acquiring 1.5 million subscribers in just a few months. May has added to the YouTube channel, in addition to the cartoons themselves, videos about different aspects of the series, with everything from lessons on how to draw the characters to content about how the series was developed. There is even a video where May reads what he calls the “mean comments” out loud and discusses them.

But the heart of it is the cartoons themselves, which feature the four superheroes – and heroines: Sumuslim, a Muslim who fights sumo-style and whose power is “hypno-storytelling,” with which he mesmerizes listeners with tales from Arab lore; TaekWonHindu, a “big sister” to the group, who loves heavy metal and fights with Taekwondo, and uses “third-eye telepathy” with animals and can multiply her arms like various Hindu gods; Ninjew, a basketball-loving Jew who has a kind of laser vision and employs “special Kabbalah invisibility powder”; and Chris Cross, a Southern Baptist street preacher who uses karate (with an unbeatable flying kick), whose power is that when he turns his cheek, he can deflect anything thrown at it.

Well this is certainly telling, and most pathetic how Mr. May apparently cannot muster the courage to differentiate between religions and make clear there's such a thing as both good and bad religions, and good and bad ways to practice one. And what's this about the Jewish character emphasizing "invisibility"? Even if that alludes to going into combat cloaked, it sounds on the surface like he's written hiding himself based on his ethnic background, which isn't a very healthy idea either. But of course, what's really offensive is Mr. May's apparent sugarcoating of Islam. This is a religion that calls for smiting necks of kuffar (infidels/non-Muslims) in Sura 47:4 of the Koran, approves of sexual violence in Sura 2:223, and many of these verses and other such content of the "religion of peace" played a part last year in the October 7, 2023 bloodbath in southern Israel, yet Mr. May has the chutzpah to shrug all that off by giving Islam a role it doesn't deserve in his cartoon project? Does he even know about the antisemitic verses in the Koran, including 5:60's reference to Jews as "sons of apes and pigs"? What May's doing is perpetuating a vehement refusal by people like him to investigate what could lead to bigoted behavior by anybody, based on selective PC. And that's continuing to seriously harm the world's ability to combat Islamic terrorism.

Depending how you see this, it's funny how an Arab character isn't considered for the role of a Christian, nor does May and his staff think of emphasizing an Armenian for the role, most likely because somebody would want to point out how Christians have been persecuted in Muslim countries, and the Turkish Ottoman empire's slaughter of Armenians during WW1 was motivated by the Religion of Peace. And the sugarcoating of Islam in May's cartoons is also hurtful to Hindus, because in India, there've been only so many horrors perpetrated by Islam in the span of over many years, and that too gets swept under the rug by ignoramuses like May. Does he really think realists are going to appreciate how he creates a moral equivalence between Islam and other religions that're still long persecuted by Islam? Men like May clearly never consider communities like 9-11 Families, Black Christians in Nigeria who've been murdered by jihadists, Israeli victims of Islamic terrorism, victims of the jihadists at the Bataclan in Paris, France, or even apostates from Islam like Rifqa Bary. By whitewashing Islam, men like May marginalize the people who really deserve the spotlight for heroism and appreciation. May continued to reveal the following:

THE IDEA for God’s Gang first came to him in 2006, May said. “I had joined Disney Channel right after they acquired Fox Entertainment from Haim Saban; two months after I joined, we were all invited to the Disney Channel Executive Summit, and I was in the marketing department. We all pitched ideas about what can make Disney great, and I offered them an interfaith Power Rangers.”

But the entertainment giant didn’t go for the idea. “Luckily, they left it for me. I feel it’s my life’s mission.”

A mission to obscure any serious issues that could be raised about the Religion of Peace? Well sadly, that appears to be just it. Most interesting he mentions Saban, whom I don't exactly consider a "national treasure" for Israel, any more than most other leftists of their kind. Saban's been one of the biggest Democrat donors, and while he may have recently been critical of the outgoing POTUS Joe Biden, it doesn't excuse how he's long been the kind of leftist who simply won't stay out of political affairs, among other questionable career specialties. To be sure, Disney was already far gone politically even during the mid-2000s, yet for the time, that didn't convince them to take up the kind of project he sadly crafted, which some Islamists will be quite pleased with, based on how it excuses their religion's dark record.

May said that he had grown up in a liberal, secular home, where his father was a Holocaust survivor and his mother was an orphan, with no family. Being without a family “was a proof for her that there is no God,” he said.

But after life threw some unexpected experiences at him, “I realized that I might have been wrong in thinking that this universe doesn’t have a governing entity, aka creator, source, God, the universe,” he said.

He began exploring his identity and studying Judaism, on his own and with rabbis, and gradually realized, he said, that all the teachings could be summed up in “two simple words: ‘one’ and ‘love.’”

The more he delved into Jewish mysticism, he realized “I had to do a big tikkun.... We were chosen to spread light.... I decided to commit myself to bringing people together. It’s a difficult mission.”

Coming from the world of marketing and entertainment, he said, “I was ready to tell the story of how we can get together.” Keeping in mind The Beatles’ lyrics to the songs “Give Peace a Chance” and “Come Together,” he chose to launch God’s Gang, which he had put aside for over a decade. “I decided to bring them to life during COVID, not knowing what the future would bring.”

Aware of the sensitivity of creating a cartoon with characters from different religions, he appointed a board of advisers, an “interfaith council” from all religious points of view, with whom he consults on every detail of the series, “just to make sure that we’re not harming anyone or touching on any sensitive topics that we shouldn’t get into.”

Among those he has brought on board is Rob Kutner, the head writer, who has won five Primetime Emmys, whose credits include The Daily Show and The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien. He also hired creators from Disney, Netflix, and DreamWorks.

The article is evasive of clearer answers, but it's not hard to guess he hired a committee that's much like the "sensitivity readers" hired by some leftist book publishers to work on the scripting. Even his alleged finding of faith is suspect, as he's clearly left-wing in his viewpoints, and the article largely obscures issues like October 7, 2023. Does he know lyrics like "give peace a chance" have also been exploited by leftists who ignore these serious issues involved? And then he even employed people who worked for one of leftist Steven Spielberg's companies. That's got to be telling too.

May is currently funding God’s Gang himself, and he said he is actively looking for partners, which will enable him to produce more episodes. He hopes to create four new episodes this year.

There is also an online store selling God Gang-themed merchandise, the profits from which May is channeling back into the cartoons: “This logo promotes love, and I want this to be the most recognized trademark in the world associated with the values that we’re promoting.”

In the upcoming episodes, new characters will be added, possibly a Buddhist and an atheist, although May said that the core of God’s Gang would remain the same. So will the message.

Does Mr. May know Muslims have persecuted and attacked Buddhists too? Even atheists aren't immune. Writing up roles for Buddhists in a cartoon like this isn't going to excuse the serious issues occurring in real life. I for one will not be funding his cartoons and merchandise, if he doesn't have the courage to make distinctions between good/bad religions, and ask whether it's possible, in allusion to the 10 Commandments, to use God's name in vain for any particular religion formed. I get the awful feeling that, if National Socialism were a full-fledged religion, ditto communism, he'd blur distinctions between those and other religions too. Ditto Scientology.

Earlier in the year, the JTA had more fascinating details to tell about Mr. May and his propaganda cartoon:

But some Jewish viewers have criticized the creators for showing what they felt was a surprising lack of cultural sensitivity.

“There’s a part where the Muslim character throws a falafel bomb,” Sam Cooper, a Maryland-based pop culture critic, said in an interview. “I assume the goal of the show is to teach tolerance and educate people about other religions, but they don’t seem to be very good at that.” (Kutner said the character, Sumuslim, aspires to be a chef, but in hindsight the decision to have him prepare a big exploding falafel ball was “a little unfortunate.”)

Cooper also lamented that the Jewish character, Ninjew, is short and has big glasses and a nasally voice. “I’ve seen this stereotype in so many shows,” she says in her review. “Jewish guys aren’t allowed to be cool. They’re usually depicted as effeminate, nerdy and weak. And then our boy Ninjew is all that and then some.” (May defended Ninjew, describing him as “a handsome Jew” with non-stereotypical blue eyes and blonde hair.)

Shekhiynah Larks, a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant in the Bay Area and a fan of animated shows, questioned the decision to make Chriscross, the Christian character, a Black Baptist street preacher who wears an Afro and bell-bottoms.

“Conceptually, I really like the interfaith gang, but all of the characters seem like weird stereotypes,” said Larks, who is Black and Jewish. “The Black character made me think the creators haven’t seen a Black person since the Blaxploitation films.” (Kutner said Brandon Jones, a Baptist pastor who serves on the interfaith council and is Black, loved the character.)

Yes, this is pretty troubling alright. The Jewish character is made to look absurdly pious in a way that suggests he'll never be depicted as a ladies man, and one of the commentors at the Post article noted, "Question: why does this self-proclaimed egalitarian cartoonist depict Islam as a gargantuan muscle bound djinn dwarfing the other three religions and looking down on them over his left shoulder, with the Jews getting a pint sized myopic nerd?" Yes, what's with that? Not every Muslim adherent is tall, after all. Is May scared his Muslim audience will be offended? A clue as to the wokeness involved. Interesting a DEI specialist was quoted here, and even he found it appalling. As for the Black character having an Afro hairstyle, it could've been worse - in more recent times, there was a stereotype to depict Black men as bald, as happened to Luke Cage under Brian Bendis when he was at Marvel, IIRC (even Black women were put through humiliating ideas like that, as seen in modern Black Panther comics and even the sequel movie). But, a valid point is made that it's ridiculous to make it look like Blacks should all have Afro hairstyles.

I think the most galling thing about people like May is that they believe their ethnic background will actually keep anybody else from taking serious issue with any and all leftist ideologies they embrace, though as the above makes clear, of course there's also Christians who find it ludicrous, and Judeo-Christian critics certainly did find the part involving falafel used as an explosive weapon by the Islamist disturbing. May, regrettably, is just one in a whole ocean filled with leftist ideologues, mainly because only so many conservatives over the years trashed and threw away serious chances to build their own competition, and now, look where we are. I strongly advise parents who're realists to keep their children away from May's morally equivalent propaganda that clearly whitewashes the Religion of Peace at the expense of other religions with better values.

Labels: Africa, animation, Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics, terrorism, violence

It's been 45 years since the first official Alien movie debuted, directed at the time by Ridley Scott (whose resume has unfortunately become more PC in the past decade or so), which went on to become the subject of many comics stories too the following decade, as seen in this SpaceCom listing. There is, however, one entry on the list that can decidedly raise questions whether it's worth it:

Originally titled Alien Vol. 1, Alien: Bloodlines marked the fresh start of Marvel's first three-story arc for the Alien franchise, which was completed with Revival and Icarus. It does kick off like a typical Alien storyline, but things quickly get stranger than anyone expected going in.

Salvador Larroca's art wasn’t to everyone’s tastes, yet Phillip Kennedy Johnson's writing more than makes up for it. More importantly, this trilogy convinced fans from the get-go that new, exciting stuff could be done with the property under Marvel's umbrella, and the mystery of the biomechanical ‘Goddess' is a nice twist on the more psychological and strangely erotic side of the Alien movies.

Oh, please. The woke way they're going these days? Not really. Marvel's brand new item under their oversight is decidedly one example we could do without, and what they're telling here sounds so biased.

Now, the Federalist's asking whether the anti-corporate themes in the movies - and surely the comics by extension - still prove effective in an era where corporatism may actually have become acceptable to leftists. Here's what's really fascinating:

Corporations certainly have a strange place in American politics, let alone in Hollywood. The Republican Party has historically been far more aligned with the interests of major corporations, with Democrats long wailing about pollution, Big Pharma, monopolies, and the detrimental effects of Walmart on the small business economy. That’s certainly changed in recent years, with Disney, BlackRock, and Pfizer becoming leftist darlings. It is much easier now to be a conservative and to hate corporations, if only because it’s clear corporations are happily working against conservative values.

Science fiction’s deep hatred of corporations isn’t difficult to understand. The genre has a futuristic and progressive bend going back to its foundations. Corporations are easy fodder for stories about mankind’s follies and our species’ future (or lack thereof). It is easy to imagine corporations choosing profits over human life in a story because it’s clear that there are corporations in real life that do so.

From Foxconn’s suicides to Vietnamese sweatshop labor and DuPont’s history of Teflon poisoning, the trope does speak to an observable carelessness among global mega corporations — one rural and middle-class Americans have endured amid globalization as their financial lives have been quietly destroyed.

What makes “Alien: Romulus” fascinating is how little has changed in the genre in the past 45 years. Ridley Scott’s 1979 “Alien” told a story in which all of the events are manipulated by Weyland-Yutani, pressuring a crew of space truckers to put themselves in danger for the company’s good. Working-class people have their contracts threatened by their unwillingness to risk their lives, leading to five brutal deaths at the hands of a horrific alien monster. James Cameron’s “Aliens” further shows the company putting hundreds of colonist families in danger to access the Xenomorphs, lying to its protagonist as a means of using her body to traffic an alien embryo back to Earth.

The critical reaction to “Alien: Romulus” has largely focused on its nostalgia and fan service, with the film paying tribute to all of the previous films in the franchise — to its detriment. It’s schlocky and violent and tries to gloss over its lack of originality with heavy-handed callbacks and practical special effects. This isn’t to say the film is bad, as it is occasionally clever and engaging, but the result is that it transports the same concepts and ideas from a 45-year-old horror film into a modern context without much unpacking.

I can't say I thought about this much, but it sure is bizarre if years before, conservatives were that attached to supporting conglomerates - as certainly occurred a quarter century ago, when they backed Disney over Mickey Mouse and such - this despite how only so many leftists came to manage them, and rightists by contrast apparently didn't have what it took to build up their own presence within the same. And despite any and all backing by conservatives, it clearly never convinced the leftists in the offices to change their voting patterns.

But if modern leftists still view conglomerates as perfect choices for villains of the show, one must wonder if it's in the sense they model them after perceived conservatives and capitalists of the same side, and said corporations are never pegged as liberal-run in any way. No doubt, that's why potentially leftist filmmakers like Scott don't have an issue with making corporations the crooks of the show, because they'll never clearly and explicitly identify the businesses as sporting left-wing management. The same doubtless goes for comicdom, which'll also never go so far in the mainstream to identify businesses as liberal-run. As a result, what good does it do for the most part to hope something informative will come of even a 45-year old film franchise? Because most leftist filmmakers won't critique their own side, that's why a really challenging movie or comic won't be made by the mainstream. And that's how little's changed when it comes to entertainment in general.

Labels: history, indie publishers, licensed products, marvel comics, politics

Entertainment Weekly did a report on the new Penguin TV series at HBO spotlighting characters drawing from the recent movie The Batman, and also Jeph Loeb's The Long Halloween, among others:

More than one comic from Batman's 85 years of existence on the page served as a building block for upcoming HBO series The Penguin, a continuation of the Matt Reeves-directed The Batman that features Colin Farrell's return as Oz Cobb. And yet, the series does not feel like a "comic book show." Early on, DC fans predicted the drama might adapt The Long Halloween, one of Jeph Loeb's standout comic arcs from the late 1990s, but only because characters like Oz and the Falcone children had been confirmed for the show. That's since been dispelled.

"There's some great Penguin comics out there, but none are so seminal in the way that some of these other comics are — The Long Halloween and stories like that — that feel like you really would want that straight-up adaptation," Lauren LeFranc, showrunner and lead writer on HBO's The Penguin, explains to Entertainment Weekly. "So there was a lot of freedom in terms of how to shape Oz and what to create in terms of his backstory."

No kidding. Considering The Batman underwent certain restrictions on whether characters could smoke cigarettes, it's almost hilarious if they allegedly had the creative license to develop the Penguin for this program as they did. On which note, this TV show is apparently a continuation of the movie:

Set one week after the events of 2022's The Batman, The Penguin (premiering Sep. 19) tracks the rise of Farrell's Oz Cobb. Once the chief lieutenant of mobster Carmine Falcone (John Turturro) and operator of the Iceberg Lounge, Oz is now gunning to fill the power vacuum in Gotham City after his boss got got. He just has to contend with a few other power players looking to do the same. There are the two heirs to the Falcone criminal empire: Alberto (Michael Zegen), who's looking to push a hot new drug on the market, and Sofia (Cristin Milioti), who's fresh off a no-doubt rejuvenating stint at Arkham Asylum. There's also the other big crime family, the Maronis, led by patriarch Salvatore (Clancy Brown) and matriarch Nadia (Shohreh Aghdashloo).

When LeFranc began her brainstorm, she strategized who could populate Oz's orbit. "I grew up reading comic books, and very rarely did I feel like the women were the most interesting characters," she recalls. "When I was asked to do this, my not-so secret agenda was to create a lot of interesting, complicated women — and to have Oz respect women. That was very important to me because, in the crime drama, oftentimes your main mobster doesn't respect women." Sofia was one such comic character that stood out to LeFranc, given her close proximity to Carmine. She's now the other main lead figure of The Penguin next to Oz.

Now here's quite a decidedly ambiguous claim made, because the producer doesn't make clear exactly what comics she was reading, old or new, let alone if they were Batman-related. It wouldn't surprise me if she never read any of Barbara Gordon's early tales as Batgirl, the early incarnations of the Huntress, or even the Robin tales spotlighting Spoiler. This sounds like yet another PC distortion to make it sound like the vast output of early comicdom was as bankrupt as LeFranc is making it sound like. And that's not helpful at all. It's just a tedious, laughable disgrace. And Loeb's Batman tale was just one of at least a few overrated items on his resume. What makes that so much more important for TV writing than Denny O'Neil's own writings from the Bronze Age? Interesting enough, it also says here:

Of course, there are plenty of comic book Easter eggs, if not a straight adaptation of a classic comic book arc. Fans might recognize the name of one of Sofia's old inmates at Arkham from back in the day, for example. There are also figures like Carmen Ejogo's Eve Karlo, Oz's lover and a madame of the night. Though Eve appears to be an original character created for The Penguin, DC fans will recognize that she shares a last name with a notable Batman villain, the original Clayface, Basil Karlo. Less literal than Basil, Eve shifts between many different looks and costumes as part of her profession to fulfill her client's sexual fantasies.

So they're going to actually explore prostitution here? Well that's certainly amazing, considering even mainstream comicdom hardly looked at the subject at any angle. And if Frank Miller explored it in Batman: Year One with Catwoman/Selina Kyle depicted in such a role, it was largely abandoned by hysterical "moralists" who couldn't fathom the idea of keeping the concept canon. If they did that today, after all the wokeness that's come about since, it'd be even more laughable. Why, even the claim most mobsters in fiction aren't usually written respecting women is questionable. I did read once years ago in some history items that in the early 20th century, various syndicates usually avoided hurting women and children while planning organized crime. So why couldn't various fiction writers have taken similar approaches? That aside, isn't it better if the heroes like Batman are depicted defending women and children's dignity? I guess due to the wokeness of today, it's no longer acceptable that white male heroes be depicted protecting women and children's dignities, so instead you have villains ostensibly doing that?!? Well that's just insulting to the intellect. And what's the use of "Easter eggs"? That's no substitute for talented writing and acting.

"The great thing about very well-known, highly regarded IP is it gives you this opportunity, but you have to take the responsibility of that opportunity very seriously," says Dylan Clark, Reeves' longtime producing partner. "We learned this on Planet of the Apes." Reeves took over directing the franchise with 2014's Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, followed by 2017's War for the Planet of the Apes, also both produced by Clark. "We used that IP to get people excited, but we gave them original stories based on the characters that they loved in a contemporary way so that it was a new telling of it."

Well it's getting awfully boring already, since there's only so many challenging issues that could be explored in superhero comicdom, including the battle against Islamic terrorism, yet they always vehemently refuse to take the challenge out of cowardice, and if these kind of films and TV shows are any suggestion, they fall back on emphasizing costumed villains, but in pretty superficial ways that at this point aren't making much of a point about anything at all, and not even delivering good escapism. I don't think these folks take the responsibilities very seriously at all.

And if we were to refer back to DC comics now, there's also a very troubling miniseries coming out putting Alfred Pennyworth into a Green Lantern-connected vampire story, written by one of the worst recent writers who's hopefully on the way out, James Tynion, as reported by ComicBook:

In DC vs. Vampires, an eternal darkness fell over the DC Universe. The 12-issue Elseworlds tale — by James Tynion IV (Batman), Matthew Rosenberg (Task Force Z), and Otto Schmidt (Green Arrow) — took place on the vampire-plagued Earth 63, where Dick Grayson, Lord of All Vampires, turned Barbara Gordon into his vampire queen. After the deaths of Batman and most of the Bat-Family, a vampire-bitten Damian Wayne joined the human resistance against Queen Gordon, Daughter Born of Blood, Mother of All Vampires, and Ruler of the Seven Continents. But the night is darkest just before dawn — and in brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape the Green Lantern's light.

DC vs. Vampires: World War V #1 saw Damian, dubbed the "Cursed Child" by the vampire race, continue his crusade against the biters by assassinating the Queen of the Vampires. In this week's World War V #2, the vampire Aquaman demands that a tribe of human survivors — including Green Arrow, Black Canary, Deadshot, and John Constantine — surrender Damian to prevent a second all-out war between humans and vampires.

Well, Tynion definitely knew how to continue insulting everyone's intellect with yet more of the same cliches he's becoming known for with his horror-themed indie comics. Here, they even keep making use of of a kid character who, if memory serves, was created by Grant Morrison, to serve as a son to Batman born to Talia al Ghul. One could say that, while only so much attention is lavished upon all these live action adaptations like Penguin, back in comicdom, the destruction continues without comment by any of the phonies who supposed care about the IPs. And that's shameful. One more reason I'd rather not give the Penguin producers the satisfaction of thinking that so long as their live action films and TV programs "deliver the goods", the audience will actually overlook and excuse the badness that overtook the comics.

Labels: Batman, dc comics, golden calf of villainy, Green Lantern, history, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence

Yet another horror-themed comic is being adapted to movies, as told by the Hollywood Reporter, produced by the writers of the Beetlejuice sequel:

The Ice Cream Man is ready to ring you up a scoop of suffering.

Sony genre label Screen Gems has acquired film rights to the horror anthology comic book that was written and created by W. Maxwell Prince.

Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, the creators of the smash hit Wednesday series and writers of the new Beetlejuice movie, are on board to produce the adaptation via their Sony-based Millar Gough Ink. The company’s Aaron Schmidt is also producing.

Ice Cream Man serves up a range of horror flavors and genres, all threaded by the weaver of these tales, the titular character, who could be friend or foe, an angel or a devil. Artists Martin Morazzo and Chris O’Halloran joined Prince on the book.

Suffering is exactly what this amounts to. This seems like all they can possibly think of in Tinseltown now, and the way these news sources turn these projects into such a big deal is head-shaking. It's enough to wonder if companies like Image have any humor titles to offer in contrast to this, or if Hollywood has any interest in seriously adapting them.

But the saddest part is realizing that depending how the pendulum swings, this could sadly become a blockbuster like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street during the 1980s. If that happens, it just confirms what continues to go wrong with both comics and movies.

Labels: indie publishers, msm propaganda, violence

NDTV Profit talks about how cover prices in India for comics have gone up, and they seem to worry about how to sell comics by price in India, rather than whether the story is even worth it:

When Marvel surprised the world by announcing Robert Downey Jr., loved by all as Iron Man, as super villain Doctor Doom for the next Avengers movie, director Joe Russo justified it as a proof of the unimaginable possibilities of the multiverse.

But, in the comic book universe, a possibility that is still unimaginable is how to make American superhero intellectual properties more affordable to the millions of fans in India.

This may be a financial section of the news site, but all the same, why doesn't anybody talk about making the IPs entertaining for anybody? And if they won't, then the price is all the more unjustified. And as for the movie multiverse, I'm sorry, but there's little justification for "possibilities" with the PC way they're going now.

Hollywood superhero blockbusters, especially those from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, have sent the popularity of comic books to soaring heights. They have probably never been more recognisable or more profitable throughout their entire 85-year history, dating back to the official comic book debut of the character Superman in Action Comics #1 in 1938.

Despite this popularity, comic books, the medium that invented them, seem to have seen a rise in costs in India over the decades, with the average cost of a comic book published by either DC (the publishers of Batman and Superman comics) or Marvel (the publishers of X-Men and Spider-Man comics) being in the range of Rs 500 to Rs 9,000, making them a comparatively hefty investment that adults would have the financial means to acquire.

This contrasts with the idealism, escapism and power fantasy that is traditionally associated with these stories that would primarily appeal to children and young teens.

Oh, this isn't new. They should consider that back in the USA, the price of a pamphlet rose to nearly 5 dollars or more ever since, and in rupees, it's obviously been the same inflation that's led to the rise of price for comics in India too. And where have they been all these years? Idealism, escapism, power fantasy, wish fulfilment and heroism have been marginalized for the sake of wokeness.

Between 1998 and 2008, superhero comic books sold at a much more affordable rate of Rs 10 or Rs 20 for a single issue to Rs 100 for a thicker collected edition that collected the single issues into one volume. In comparison to the current situation, they were sold in bookstores, stationery shops and newsstands alike.

This was made possible by Gotham Entertainment, a company started by entrepreneurs Sharad Devarajan and Gotham Chopra. They struck a distribution deal with American publishers like DC, Marvel and Dark Horse and MAD Magazine to reprint their comics in India. They would come in smaller sizes and on cheaper paper, and sold a low cover price, so they were accessible to many in India.

They also created the comic book character and the miniseries of the same name Spider-Man: India, in collaboration with Marvel, who also showed up in the animated movie Spider-Man: Across The Spiderverse, voiced by actor Karan Soni of Deadpool fame.

A movie that, unfortunately, was a product of the wokeness ideology that's become a sad staple of many entertainment products in the past decade or so, and raises questions as to whether the original comics matter anymore to the moviemakers or anybody else. Whatever the quality of the Indian Spidey, it unfortunately doesn't redeem the shambles the USA Spidey was reduced to under Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas.

This partnership seemed to have ended in 2008, when Gotham Entertainment Group turned into Virgin Comics due to a partnership with Richard Branson's Virgin and started publishing its own IPs, such as Devi and 18 Days.

They partnered with writers like Stan Lee, who created Spider-Man, filmmaker Jon Woo and renowned creators like Grant Morrison who is responsible for critically acclaimed works like All-Star Superman—cited as the main inspiration for the upcoming Superman movie in 2025—and Garth Ennis who is best known for writing the comic book series that inspired Amazon Prime's The Boys, which was one of its most-watched shows in 2024.

So now, they unsurprisingly sugarcoat overrated writers like Morrison and Ennis, and if the upcoming Superman movie uses the former's writings as "inspiration", that's decidedly all the more reason to feel discouraged. What's so special about Morrison's story that isn't so special about what was produced in the 1960s-70s? I seem to recall Woo's films are pretty violent to boot, and it's ludicrous to take his resume as "inspiration" too. Why don't they ever seem to form partnerships with veterans like Chuck Dixon, if they have to choose somebody whose resume includes violent stories? These publishers are so unbelievably cheap, always going for the easiest paths.

And again, where's all the discussion of story merit? Or even whether creator-owned comics are proving better fare these days? As usual, it's throughly obscured for the sake of all this overblown mainstream fare that's not worth paying a cent for.

Labels: dc comics, Europe and Asia, indie publishers, marvel comics, msm propaganda, sales

According to Giant Freakin' Robot, the now elderly actor Warren Beatty has owned the rights to making movies out of the nearly century old comic strip for nearly 4 decades:

...there’s a truly bizarre story of comic book media rights that’s resulted in a 30-year multi-media standoff. Warren Beatty, the star of the 1990 Dick Tracy film, has owned the rights to the character since 1985, and he’s doing everything possible to hold onto them.

After acquiring the film and television rights, for $3 million, to Dick Tracy, the 1930s police detective comic strip about the yellow trenchcoat-clad detective going up against organized crime, Warren Beatty worked tirelessly to get a film produced. Unable to find a director, he decided to do it himself, which lit the fuse that eventually led to a feud with Disney, the studio bankrolling the production. Plans for a franchise went up in smoke as the budget kept getting higher and higher, but Beatty wasn’t going to give up.

A Lengthy Court Battle

In 2002, the original Dick Tracy rights holders, Tribune Media, tried to sue Beatty for the rights back. A few years later, Disney admitted that a sequel was never happening and gave up their share of the franchise back to Beatty. This occurred as the legal battle with Tribune was ongoing, finally reaching a conclusion in 2009, when Tribune Media went bankrupt, leading to Warren Beatty as the last man standing holding the media rights for the entire franchise.

Holding Onto The Rights When No One Is Looking

Despite winning in court, there was a restriction imposed by the judge, stating that Warren Beatty had to produce a Dick Tracy project once every few years. As recently as 2016, the star was talking about a sequel, but now, well into his 80s, it’s increasingly unlikely he’ll put on the trenchcoat and fedora ever again.

So instead, Beatty has produced micro-budget Dick Tracy television specials, typically featuring him appearing in character for interviews. These specials have aired late at night, when no one is watching, and are frequently scrubbed from YouTube, making them a bizarre oddity of avant-garde art from one of Hollywood’s living legends.

This definitely is surprising news, made all the more baffling since the film for its time was sufficiently successful with at least $145 million. Make what you will of Beatty, but I guess he's the kind of actor who's let his influence and status within Hollywood get the better of him, to the point where he grips onto the filming rights to a comic strip creation till the end of time, and won't let anybody else try it out, if at all. Not that I for one am clamouring for a sequel, since it's past a point now where Hollywood could be trusted to deliver a tasteful film, and even Beatty himself probably isn't reliable anymore.

And at nearly a century old now (it debuted in 1931, and should be 100 in about 7 years), maybe the time's come to retire the newspaper strip, if it's still running, rather than let it risk succumbing to more PC than it may already have.

Labels: comic strips, history, licensed products, msm propaganda

As the Neil Gaiman sexual assault scandal continues to gain public notice, it continues to have a domino effect on his career, including the TV and film projects recently developed from his resume. Latest case in point, as reported by Deadline, is the TV program based on Good Omens, which has apparently become a bad one for the studio producing it:

Production has been paused on the third and final season of fantasy drama Good Omens, the Neil Gaiman drama for Amazon that’s shooting in Scotland.

Deadline is hearing there are discussions about possible production changes. A spokesperson would not comment.

News about the future of Good Omen comes less than a week after Disney put a planned feature adaptation of Gaiman’s 2008 YA title The Graveyard Book on pause amid a series of sexual assault allegations against the award-winning author. (Insiders said multiple factors went into the decision). [...]

This may be the 4th project, whether live action or animation, that's been suspended as a result of the scandal. It'll be interesting to see if the Sandman show, probably the last current live action project adapted from his works, will see its next season subjected to the same result. And who knows, DC may have to put any more reprints of the comics on ice. Last time I looked, they were formatted in at least 10 paperbacks for reprints. If there was any plan to consolidate the 75 issues or so into larger volumes that've become more common today, they'd probably be sold next as 5 paperback volumes with a higher price, but after this whole scandal, any plans for a larger format may see the kibosh put on them. If they continue, the news suggests Gaiman will be removed from any staff position on the crew of the shows, though at this point, that he was the writers of these books and comics will still have a tainting effect on them.

I may have noticed some commentators arguing Gaiman was instrumental in getting people to recognize comicdom as something adults could embrace as a form of literature. Curious they don't consider Mike Baron's creations like Nexus and Badger worthy of such an honor, and for all we know, they probably don't even consider Alan Moore fit for it either at this point. If anybody with sense looked at the 1980s under a magnifying glass, they'd see there's dozens of creator-owned comics emerging at the time that could've proven the point of revolutionizing comicdom as an art form worthy of adult readership. Maybe those writing history articles about comicdom would like to take the time to do the math and connect the dots for real in the future before fawning over an overrated writer whose whole idea of how to make comics "adult" was to make them dark and grisly?

Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, violence

The pretentious Tom Brevoort wrote on his Substack site (via ComicBook) that back in the mid-2000s, when they first set about launching the direction stemming from the awful Avengers: Disassembled, that when they first developed Young Avengers, they supposedly didn't like the idea Joe Quesada was involved in launching, built as it was on early examples of what we now describe with the slang "woke":

I believe Allan Heinberg once alluded that there was some audience skepticism to Young Avengers initially before its release in 2005 (which informed the framing of the first issue). Do you recall if Young Avengers was anticipated or dreaded by audiences before it came out? Thankfully at the end of the day it was a beautiful success!

Oh yeah, nobody liked the idea of YOUNG AVENGERS before the book came out, most of all me. I thought it was another dopey idea that Joe Quesada had come up with. But once Allan Heinberg was on board to create it, we came up with ways to make it work and to not have it be what everybody was dreading. This is entirely the reason why the first house ad we made up for the series, which ran in AVENGERS #500, was focused upon the idea that “They’re Not What You Think”

No kidding. This was a series where Hulkling and Wiccan were a token LGBT couple, and they claim this wasn't what everyone was dreading? On the contrary, if there was something else anybody with more common sense might've been dreading at the time, it's that this would be the millionth example of of a team series where one or more members were coupled with each other, not with civilian co-stars. Now that I think of it, did Scarlet Witch ever have a civilian boyfriend (she was involved with Hawkeye, Vision and Wonder Man)? Did Quicksilver ever have a civilian girlfriend (he was involved with Crystal)? If not, that's got to be speaking volumes of a huge flaw in superhero team titles of the past - they built on cheap insularity. Rather than take the challenging path of creating civilian ladies and gentlemen to serve as the lovers for the superheroes and superheroines, even writers who I most admire seemed determined to just stick with the easy-peasy notion of heroes dating each other.

And it wouldn't be surprising if Quesada had anything to do with the woke direction Young Avengers took, which Brevoort and his correspondent gush about without offering any sales figures to corroborate the claim it was a huge success. Lest we forget, many editors can lay out certain elements they want an assigned writer to build a story and characters around. Even Brevoort may have worked out some of the PC cliches for Heinberg to go by in creating the cast for Young Avengers. And, lest we forget, even if Young Avengers wasn't so woke, it'd still have been soured by how it all grew out of the directions that followed Avengers: Disassembled, one of the most atrocious "events" of the mid-2000s, turning Scarlet Witch into a scapegoat, and one of the worst stories of the times that brought down mainstream superhero comics. It would seem stories like Disassembled only exist as a shoddy excuse to introduce wokeness, and indeed, that's what both Disassembled and DC's Identity Crisis were intended for back in the day. Brevoort, as main Avengers editor, was part of all that embarrassment back at the time too, so, no surprise he'd be so fluff-coated about the whole dismal affair, which Brian Bendis was the main writer for.

I sometimes thought Brevoort was quite a boaster, and this certainly indicates he is. It's sad he was never really qualified for the job he unfortunately first got 35 years ago.

Labels: Avengers, bad editors, crossoverloading, golden calf of LGBT, marvel comics, misogyny and racism